DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR 


JV 6481 
1904 
Copy 2 


REPORT 


OF 


THE COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT ON 
SEPTEMBER 16, 1903 


INVESTIGATE THE CONDITION 

OF THE 

IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND 



WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1904 













Department of Commerce and Labor 

Document No. 10 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 


O 


MAR 22 190: 

D. of D, 





a 7/. 


«S 


i 

» 

d 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 


Letter of transmittal. 5 

Members of Commission. 7 

Criticisms or charges made in relation to the treatment, at the Ellis Island 

station, of immigrants....i.._ 8 

Barge and steamboat service. 10 

Civil marriages. 11 

Complaints regarding the awarding and interpretation of certain contracts_ 11 

Food contract. 11 

Money-exchange contract.1. 12 

Austro-Hungarian Home. 14 

Women inspectors. 14 

Inadequacy of buildings and their appointments at Ellis Island. 15 

Deportation of immigrants under the act of March 3, 1903. 16 

Recommendations. 36 


3 



















LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 


White House, 

November 16 , 1903. 

My Dear Sir: I transmit herewith for the consideration of your 
Department the report of the commission appointed on September 
16, 1903, to investigate the condition of the immigrant station at Ellis 
Island. 

Very truly yours, 

Theodore Roosevelt. 

Hon. Geo. B. Cortelyou, 

Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 

5 













REPORT 


OP THE 

COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1903, TO 
INVESTIGATE THE CONDITION OF THE IMMIGRATION 
STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


Commissioners. 

Arthur v. Briesen, Chairman; Lee K. Frankel, Secretary; Eugene A. Philbin, 
Thomas W. Hynes, Ralph Trautmann. 


The President. 

Sir: The commission appointed by you on September 16 , 1903 , to 
investigate the condition of the immigrant station at Ellis Island has 
the honor to respectfully report as follows: 

The commission understood that it was your desire that it should 
nquire not onty as to the criticisms or charges made in relation to the 
administration of the station, but that it should also conduct a general 
inquiiy as to the operation of the existing laws controlling immigra¬ 
tion, and the procedure thereunder, and make any suggestions that 
might conduce to the advancement of the objects for which such laws 
are enacted. 

In order to attain these objects the commission had public hearings, 
notice of which was not only given in the daily press, but also to all 
persons from whom the commission had reason to believe information 
could be obtained, including many officials stationed at Ellis Island. 
In all cases the witnesses examined were asked to take the oath and did 
so. For the purpose of obtaining information as to the charges that 
had been specifically made, and of ascertaining any defects either in 
the law or its enforcement, the commission did not limit itself to call¬ 
ing those who had expressed a. desire to testify in support of charges, 
but personally made inquiry from different persons who had had inter¬ 
course with the station. Visits to the station were made by the com¬ 
missioners at various times and inspection made of its operations. 

After taking upward of 700 pages of testimony, and carefully con¬ 
sidering the views submitted by Messrs. Emil von Schleinitz, A. S. 
Anderson, Hon. Gebhard Willrick, and others, whose study of the 

7 




8 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


question of immigration entitled their opinions to the highest respect, 
it seemed to the commission that the general subject of the investiga¬ 
tion might be most conveniently discussed under two heads, viz: 

First. The charges of neglect or ill treatment of the immigrant. 

Second. The deportation or exclusion of immigrants. 

I. CRITICISMS, OR CHARGES, MADE IN RELATION TO THE TREAT¬ 
MENT, AT THE ELLIS ISLAND STATION, OF THE IMMIGRANTS. 

The charges, or criticisms, that presented the most serious aspect 
were made by a German newspaper in New York City, the New Yorker 
Staats-Zeitung. The circulation and standing of this journal are of 
such a character as to entitle to the most serious consideration any 
statements made by it, and therefore the commission felt it its duty to 
especially invite the Staats-Zeitung to submit facts in support of the 
charges made by it. In response to this invitation, a reporter of the 
paper, accompanied by one of the editors of the paper, appeared 
before the commission at its first public hearing, and, after being duly 
sworn, testified. The reporter had been the representative of the 
Staats-Zeitung at Ellis Island for a considerable period of time, 
antedating in its commencement the incumbency of the Hon. VYilliam 
Williams, the present commissioner at Ellis Island station, and in that 
capacity had been in the habit of transmitting reports to his paper. 
He testified that as to almost all the facts reported by him and pub¬ 
lished by his paper he had no personal knowledge, but had depended 
upon the records at the station and upon information given him by 
persons whose names he was unwilling to disclose. It was pointed 
out to him that the commission could hardly be expected to accept as 
true any statements not supported by the public records unless they 
were supported by something more authentic than hearsay evidence 
(pp. 8-12). In his refusal to give more definite information he was sus¬ 
tained b} T the editor of the paper referred to, who even went so far 
at one time as to instruct the witness not to answer. The reporter 
further testified that immigrants at times were obliged to sleep in the 
rooms they had occupied during the da}^, although he admitted that 
sleeping accommodations were provided for them in these rooms 
(p. 6). As to whether such conditions did exist or not he was unable 
to testify from personal observation, because he was in the habit of 
leaving the island at 4 o’clock in the afternoon. He gave testimony 
tending to show that there had been a lack of cleanliness about the 
island, but that this had been largely overcome by the present admin¬ 
istration (pp. 3-4). It was later stated by other witnesses that these 
rooms were cleaned several times daily. 

The witness further expressed an opinion that vermin were allowed 
to exist on the island. He said, however, that for the most part he 
had no knowledge of this, but that he had heard complaints from a 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


9 


good many people in the detention room and from friends who had 
visited the immigrants detained there (p. Id). He said that he per¬ 
sonally saw vermin in the women’s rooms, “but perhaps it was not 
the acfrninistration’s fault, only that they didn’t keep them constantly 
clean, you know, to prevent such conditions” (p. 15). 

The witness further testified that the immigrants at the hospital at 
Ellis Island were required to work, and that a German woman had 
complained to some missionaries that she was compelled to do so while 
remaining with her children in the hospital, and that one of her 
children, who was not ill, was obliged to do likewise (pp. 22-23). The 
physician in control of the hospital was asked as to the charge, and he 
testified that no such incident had occurred, and that the rules of the 
hospital forbade such practices (p. 621). 

The reporter further stated that the food furnished the immigrants 
was good. In further, support of his criticisms of the Ellis Island 
administration he submitted to the commission some 300 articles, which 
he stated he had written, making charges against the service (p. 18). 
“Hell on earth” was one of the milder headings to these articles. 

All of the articles thus submitted were handed to Commissioner Wil¬ 
liams, with the request that he specifically answer each one of the 
cases described. When Commissioner Williams testified, he came pre¬ 
pared to give the facts in relation to each one of the instances set forth 
in the articles published by the Staats-Zeitung, and his statements 
were supported by the records kept by the Government. In one case, 
where the reporter had testified that a woman had complained of hav¬ 
ing been attacked b} T vermin, the testimony furnished b} r the commis¬ 
sioner and others, including her own written statement, was to the 
effect that she had complained of mosquitoes only (p. 405). 

There was further testimony that it was almost impossible to prevent 
the existence of vermin on the island, because large numbers of the 
immigrants constantly brought the cause for complaint with them 
(pp. 115, 206-207). One witness, who as a representative of a benevo¬ 
lent society had had relations with the station for a long period, tes¬ 
tified as follows on this subject: 

Q. Have you not heard the immigrants complain there are bugs in the sleeping 
apartment?— A. Why, they bring the bugs with them; so of course they can not 
pay much attention to that. I think the place is kept cleaner than the people are when 
they come from the steamers. 

The reporter had some views to express as to the hardships involved 
in the enforcement of the deportation law, and said that sufficient 
opportunity for appeal from the decisions of the board of inquiry was 
not given. We did not find this charge sustained by' an investigation 
of the facts, as is more fully shown on page 40 of this report. 

Regarding the complaint touching upon the alleged ill treatment of 
immigrants, the evidence adduced is to the effect that they were treated 


10 IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 

with consideration and kindness. The information thus submitted 
was given b} r the benevolent societies and missionaries, who make it a 
special duty to look after immigrants upon their arrival at this port 
and to protect them. Pains were taken to ask each one of these wit¬ 
nesses whether or not he had heard any complaints from the many 
immigrants who had passed through the hands of his societ} 7 , irrespec¬ 
tive of the fact whether or not he considered any complaints so made 
trivial, immaterial, or unjust. And with one or two exceptions the 
reply was stated in the negative. One of the exceptions was in the 
testimony of the English missionary, who said that she didn’t regard 
the matter complained of as of any consequence, and made the expla¬ 
nation that her race had the reputation of being grumblers (p. 174). 

As another instance, the missionary in charge of the Swedish Society 
stated that owing to the fact that he believed his people to be excep¬ 
tionally clean, complaints were made by them of the lack of a similar 
characteristic in the immigrants with whom they came in contact 
(P. 156). 

The managers of the various benevolent societies all testified, under 
oath, that there was no ground for complaint as to the treatment of the 
immigrants. The commission therefore is forced to assume that the 
reporter had been misled by the persons who furnished him informa¬ 
tion as to nearly all the charges made by him against the Government 
officers. 

BARGE AND STEAMBOAT SERVICE. 

Complaint has also been made by some persons that the barge and 
steamboat service is inadequate, but that is not under the control of 
the immigration service, but under the steamship-inspection law. It 
may be that, in view of the fact that the present facilities at Ellis 
Island do not permit the inspection of over 6,000 immigrants dail} 7 , in 
the event of a greater number of persons arriving in one day the 
barge facilities are inadequate, but according to the testimony such 
conditions are unusual and not likely to arise ordinarily. There was 
one occasion, however, when 13,000 people arrived in one day. It is 
further discussed on page 18 of this report. But only 6,000 persons 
are allowed to come to Ellis Island; more can not be examined in one 
day with the present facilities (p. 504). To detain meanwhile the 
others on the vessels that brought them involves undue hardship and 
expense. Hence larger quarters on the island appear necessary. 

A special report on the barge and steamboat service, which was 
made at your commission’s request b}^ Mr. Louis A. Friedman, will be 
found in the exhibit book as Exhibit No. 39. 

The principal difficulties pointed out by Mr. Friedman are: 

The overcrowding of the steamboat cabins in inclement weather, 
owing to the fact that their carrying capacity has been calculated upon 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


11 


the area of open decks and not upon that of cabins; and also the 
undue exposure of persons to the shafting' and machinery on the boats. 
We believe that the cabin capacity should control the number allowed 
to be carried. 

CIVIL MARRIAGES. 

As to civil marriages, we report that there have been 227 marriages 
performed on Ellis Island since December 15, 1902, the date when 
under the laws of the State of New York a civil marriage by contract 
was authorized. These marriages are insisted upon by the authorities 
at Ellis Island for the protection of the women who but for such mar¬ 
riages would have to be deported. We find the requirement that there 
be such marriages has not been abused. The criticism, however, has 
been made by several of the missionaries that religious marriages 
would be preferable in many instances. No doubt they would. Such 
of the missionaries as are ministers and authorized to perform a mar¬ 
riage ceremony are, if present, permitted to do so at Ellis Island; but 
the civil marriage is a requirement, nevertheless, because it makes a 
record which in man} 7 cases becomes of great importance, especially 
where either party to the contract was not bona fide in his relation 
thereto. Those who, after the civil-marriage contract has been entered 
into, so desire, can certainly be married again by a minister after land¬ 
ing. The commissioner properly claims that he has no right under 
the law to parole these people—that is to say, to allow them to land 
first on condition that they get married. The protection which he 
seeks to throw about the women would become impossible if they 
•were allowed to land before being legally married. 

The commission is of the opinion that the religious ceremony in 
cases of marriage be resorted to at Ellis Island whenever feasible, 
unless the parties decline to have such ceremony performed. 

COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE AWARDING AND INTERPRETATION OF 
CERTAIN CONTRACTS. 

FOOD CONTRACT. 

Questions in relation to two contracts were presented to us. One 
concerned the contract held by the present caterer, which called for 
supplying food to immigrants, and the other in relation to the contract 
awarded to Messrs. Post & Flagg for exchanging immigrants’ money. 
In the first of these cases, Messrs. Reed & Bremhall claimed that they 
had been the lowest bidders for the food contract which was given out 
in July, 1902, and that they should have received the contract. It 
appears that, in fact, they were not the lowest bidders; that they had 
already presented their complaint prior to the time the contract was 
actually awarded, to the Secretary of the Treasury and to the Presi¬ 
dent of the United States, and that after a full and ample hearing the 


12 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


Secretary ordered the present caterers to be awarded the contract, 
mainly on the ground that an analysis of the bids showed them to be 
the lowest bidders, their responsibility also having beeii fully estab¬ 
lished. In addition to this we have in the record a letter written by 
Bremhall, of the firm of Reed & Bremhall, to the present caterers, 
dated June 21, 1902. This letter was therefore written before the 
contract in question went into effect. It is produced on page 517 of 
minutes. In it Mr. Bremhall informs the present caterers that the 
partnership of Reed & Bremhall had been dissolved, and that he 
(Bremhall) asks employment by the present caterers, and expresses 
himself as perfectly reconciled to the result of the award. As there 
was no firm of Reed & Bremhall to receive any contract in June, 1902, 
nor since, and as all these matters have already been heard and decided 
by the proper authorities, we do not deem it our duty to further con¬ 
sider them. 

MONEY-EXCHANGE CONTRACT. 

It appears that the firm of Post & Flagg were awarded a contract 
for exchanging money at Ellis Island, so that immigrants who brought 
foreign money could receive American money in exchange. Before 
Messrs. Post & Flagg received that contract it had been the practice 
at Ellis Island for Mr. Conti, a correspondent of the Bank of Naples, 
to receive drafts from that bank, which were given the immigrants 
abroad in exchange for their money, and which read for so man} 7 ' 
American dollars. It appears from the exhibits in this case that the 
Italian Government, being very solicitous for the welfare of its people, 
advised them particularly to take no money in coin aboard ship with 
them, the advice being no doubt based upon the belief that what little 
these people had was apt to be frittered away to their injury. They' 
were advised at home to exchange their coin for checks on Mr. Conti’s 
New York branch of the Bank of Naples, and these checks read, as 
already stated, for so many American dollars. When they reached 
Ellis Island they received in exchange for these checks their full face 
value, Conti at that time having a stand at Ellis Island, which enabled 
each immigrant to make a prompt exchange. This arrangement was 
in effect prior to the time, but not when Messrs. Post & Flagg were 
asked to bid for the contract granting them the privilege of exchang¬ 
ing immigrants’ money at Ellis Island. The printed forms inviting 
such bids asked the applicants to state “at what rates they will cash 
drafts on New York banks or banking firms of well-known standing.” 

IVhen Messrs. Post& Flagg put in their bid, wherein they said that 
they would cash drafts on New York banks or banking firms of well- 
known standing for a commission of one-tenth of 1 per cent on their 
face value, and would cash without charge all Government checks or 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


13 


drafts of persons employed at Ellis Island, they knew, or should have 
known, of the practice in relation to these Italian drafts. They con¬ 
tinued for a while to charge the above rate, and then notified Conti that 
they would charge him one-half of 1 per cent on all these drafts. On 
Conti’s protest, the matter was submitted to the Secretary of Com¬ 
merce and Labor, who decided that, inasmuch as Post & Flagg paid 
$1,200 for their privilege to the Government, and inasmuch as foreign 
drafts had not been mentioned in the offer or proposal nor in the 
contract, the contract could only be understood to relate to domestic 
drafts, and that therefore Post & FLgg had a right to collect one-half 
of 1 per cent on all money cashed on the checks of the Bank of 
Naples. 

Each Italian brings such a check. It calls for so many dollars, 
always in round numbers, meaning no fraction of dollars; Messrs. 
Post & Flagg have a cash deposit from Conti of $3,000 always On hand. 
From this cash deposit they take the dollars and pay them to the 
immigrant, without identification, and when the amounts thus dis¬ 
bursed reduce the Conti deposit, they immediately call for its restoration 
and continue the process. They then hand the checks over to Conti, 
retaining one-half of 1 per cent as their commission. With all other 
money exchanged at Ellis Island the part} 7 making the exchange 
has much greater trouble, and there does not seem to be any valid 
reason why these checks, for which the cash is always on hand at Ellis 
Island, should be more strictly treated, and why under a sound con¬ 
struction of the contract they should not be included in its provisions 
as originally drawn. If foreign drafts are not mentioned in the bid 
or original proposal nor in the contract based thereon (p. 43) a new 
bid may be necessary. The fact that the transportation companies, 
whose offices are at Ellis Island, have been directed not to receive 
these checks from immigrants in payment for railroad tickets, com¬ 
plicates the situation. We report the facts as we find them, and 
recommend that on the expiration of the contract no further contracts 
be given out for the exchange of money, but that such exchange be 
performed by an officer of the Department under such regulations as 
under the circumstances would appear fair and proper. 

The commission has been informed that an amended contract with 
the word “foreign” inserted before the word “drafts” has been 
recently executed. There are doubts as to whether the alteration of 
the original contract can thus be legally made, but as we are advised 
that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor has this entire matter 
under consideration and will submit to the Attorney-General this ques¬ 
tion of change of contract, we will not further consider it. 

In all other respects, so far as the commission has been able to 
determine, the money exchange system operates satisfactorily. 


14 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN HOME. 

Complaint was made as to, an alleged discourtesy shown the Austro- 
Hungarian Home by the commissioner of Ellis Island. The informa¬ 
tion tending to establish such a charge was unsatisfactory, and, in fact, 
no witness made the specific allegation, but the facts were given to the 
commission in a general way. The commissioner, on being asked for 
an explanation, stated that he felt it his duty to exercise a supervision 
over the welfare of the immigrants even after they had left the island 
and while sojourning in one of the homes of the various societies, and 
that, therefore, if information came to him that immigrants were being 
neglected or their interests disregarded, he invariably made inquiry 
with a view of preventing further injury. It was further stated that 
the facts in relation to the home in question were, that information had 
been sent to Ellis Island that the sanitary conditions of the house were 
defective and injurious. The commissioner made an inspection and 
also communicated with the head of the health department of New 
York City, and the latter, after having* made an examination, con¬ 
demned the unsanitary conditions that existed in the home and ordered 
that they be remedied (pp. 408 et seq.). 

Doctor Senner, who was formerly a commissioner of immigration at 
Ellis Island, and who is prominently identified w r ith the home, was 
asked to appear before the commission in relation to this subject, but 
declined to do so. 

Regarding the discussion between the said home and the commis¬ 
sioner on the subject of giving to men the addresses of girls for whom 
the home has found positions, we refer to the correspondence, Exhibit 
28. On the theory that immigrants who might otherwise have to be 
deported are allowed to be cared for in homes of this character, a rea¬ 
sonable supervision by the authorities is clear^ justified. 

WOMEN INSPECTORS. 

The matter of the dismissal of the women inspectors was given some 
attention. Commissioner Williams and a number of other witnesses, 
including some of the women inspectors, testified in relation to the 
subject. The commission became satisfied that the service performed 
by the women inspectors was a ven^ desirable and necessary one, 
and that it should be continued. The commissioner stated it was 
necessary that the persons performing the duty should have had some 
experience, and for that reason he had recommended that matrons 
from Ellis Island be substituted for the women originally appointed, 
and this course is now being followed with apparent success. 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


15 


INADEQUACY OF THE BUILDINGS AND THEIR APPOINTMENTS AT ELLIS 

ISLAND. 

The testimony on this subject renders it perfectly clear that the 
building's at Ellis Island are wholly inadequate for the purposes for 
which they are intended. Neither the main building nor the hospital 
building is large enough to enable the officers to handle the number 
of persons who apply for the privilege of landing at the port of New 
York. The testimony shows that on one day as many as 13,000 aliens 
arrived at the port of New York, and that the commissioner had to 
require that all but 6,000 remain aboard their respective vessels over 
night (p. 504), as he was unable to cope with more than 6,000 during 
one day at Ellis Island. But even assuming that only 6,000 wanted to 
land during a day, the facilities for their reception are insufficient, 
and in many respects objectionable. The immigrants on landing at 
Ellis Island are required to walk to an upper floor of the inspection 
building; many of then! carry heavy bundles; they can not be per¬ 
suaded to leave their bundles below, and it would be extremely diffi¬ 
cult for them, were the} 7 to do so, to find them again conveniently. 
It is therefore probable that even in a proper structure the immi¬ 
grants will invariably try to carry certain bundles with them. Valu¬ 
able time is lost and considerable hardship incurred in the effort to 
bring all these bundles up a long flight of steps. The commissioner, 
as well as the steamship officers, missionaries, and others, are a unit 
in their criticism of this arrangement. They all ask that a proper 
inspection room be provided on the ground floor, and that the building 
be reconstructed to render this possible. We full} 7 concur in this 
recommendation. 

The hospital building also is entirely inadequate. It has been so 
constructed that at high tide water enters the basement, and a pump is 
consequently kept in motion to rid the building of this water. If 
water in the lower part of an ordinary house is apt to injuriously affect 
healthy inmates, it stands to reason that it is more seriously detri¬ 
mental in a hospital. 

Moreover, the hospital at Ellis Island is too small. It has room for 
at best 125 beds. The doctor in charge states, with reason, that at 
least 250 beds are needed. The result of this lack of space has been 
injurious to all concerned/ Many of the sick have to be taken to other 
hospitals on Long Island and Manhattan Island. The charges at other 
hospitals are higher than those at Ellis Island, and the control is 
naturally also less complete. Consequently we indorse the recom¬ 
mendation of the authorities at Ellis Island that a new hospital be 
erected, which shall be large enough to accommodate at least 250 beds, 
and which shall be constructed in such a manner that tide water can 
not enter any part thereof. 


16 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


The sleeping accommodations at the main building at Ellis Island, as 
at present constituted, consist of 1,665 beds, each of which is a metallic 
frame hinged to a wall or support and fitted with a wire “mattress.” 
Each alien who is required to stay over night at Ellis Island is given 
one or more blankets—no pillow, no regular mattress, no sheets; just 
the blankets. The evidence was clear that these blankets were not dis¬ 
infected and aired thoroughly. For those who have to stay at the 
island for one night or so these sleeping accommodations might be 
sufficient, but not a few are kept on the island for weeks and some for 
months. The testimony leaves no doubt in our minds that for a longer 
sta} r proper bedding should be supplied of the same nature as that 
which is supplied at the hospital. If in a new building the sleeping 
accommodations could be made so as to permit of a larger degree of 
privacy than is now possible, that also would be very desirable. 

The arrangement of beds in tiers of three, which prevails in most 
dormitories, is .also objectionable. The erection of a new building 
would render such an arrangement unnecessary, and therefore should 
not be delayed. 

In some respects the sanitary arrangements on the island are not of 
the most approved character, and require attention and replacement. 
Many improvements have been made in this respect by the present 
administration. We understand that over 40 contracts have been 
given out by it for this purpose since May last. 

We respectfully suggest that plans for a satisfactory main building 
and for a hospital be prepared, and that after proper buildings shall 
have been erected the inner arrangements be made so as to meet pres¬ 
ent lequirements. The detention rooms are frequently overcrowded 
to such an extent that not even seats enough can be supplied, to say 
nothing of the opportunity for needful exercise. The rooms in which 
those who are allowed to land have to wait until the barge or vessel 
taking them ofi is read} 7- for their reception are likewise inadequate. 
As the Government exacts a head tax of $2 from each alien arriving, 
and as over 689,000 paid that tax during the last fiscal year, it stands 
to reason that sufficient funds are brought in to justify the Govern¬ 
ment in supplying sufficient accommodations. 

II. THE DEPORTATION OF IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE ACT OF 
MARCH 3, 1903. 

The enforcement of the law with regard to the deportation of immi- 
grants, involving as it does not only the rights of the immigrants but 
also the welfare of this great country, to whose interest it is that 
desirable immigrants shall not, and that undesirable immigrants shall 
be excluded, presents many aspects of the immigration problem, and 
includes almost every point that has been raised as to the administra- 
tion of the immigration laws. 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


17 


The above-mentioned act continues and extends the restriction that 
has existed for many years, and amends earlier laws in many important 
respects. The immigration laws provide that there shall be levied, 
collected, and paid a duty of $2 for each and every passenger, not a 
citizen of the United States, or the Dominion of Canada, the Republic 
of Cuba, or of the Republic of Mexico, who shall come by any vessel 
from any foreign port to any port within the United States, or by any 
other mode of transportation from foreign contiguous territory to the 
United States. The method in which such duty shall be paid is speci¬ 
fied, and it is also provided that the money thus collected shall be paid 
into the United States Treasury and shall constitute a permanent appro¬ 
priation to be called “The Immigration Fund,” to be used under the 
direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to defray the 
expense of regulating the immigration of aliens into the United States 
under the law. No tax, however, shall be levied upon aliens in tran¬ 
sit through the United States, nor upon aliens who have once been 
admitted into the United States and have paid the head tax, who later 
shall go in transit from one part of the United States to another 
through foreign contiguous territory. 

Section 2 of the act approved March 3, 1903, entitled “An act to 
regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States,” specifies 
the classes of aliens which shall be excluded from admission into the 
United States, and they are as follows: 

All idiots, insane persons, epileptics, and persons who have been insane within five 
years previous; persons who have had two or more attacks of insanity at any time 
previously; paupers; persons likely to become a public charge; professional beggars; 
persons afflicted with a loathsome or with a dangerous contagious disease; persons 
who have been convicted of a felony or of a crime, or misdemeanor involving moral 
turpitude; polygamists, anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the over¬ 
throw, by force or violence, of the Government of the United States, or of all govern¬ 
ment, or of all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials; prostitutes, and 
persons who procure or attempt to bring in prostitutes or women for the purpose of 
prostitution; those who have been, within one year from the date of the application 
for admission to the United States, deported as being under offers, solicitations, prom¬ 
ises or agreements to perform labor or service of some kind therein, and also any 
person whose ticket or passage is paid for with the money of another, or who is 
assisted by others to come, unless it is affirmatively and satisfactorily shown that 
such person does not belong to one of the foregoing excluded classes; but this section 
shall not be held to prevent persons living in the United States from sending for a 
relative or friend who is not of the foregoing excluded classes: Provided, That noth¬ 
ing in this act shall exclude persons convicted of an offense purely political, not 
involving moral turpitude: And provided further, That skilled labor may be imported, 
if labor of like kind unemployed can not be found in this country: And provided fur¬ 
ther, That the provisions of this law applicable to contract labor shall not be held to 
exclude professional actors, artists, lecturers, singers, ministers of any religious 
denominations, professors for colleges or seminaries, persons belonging to any recog¬ 
nized learned profession, or persons employed strictly as personal or domestic 
servants. 


* 


20311—04-2 




18 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


Section 3 of the act makes further provision relating to the importa¬ 
tion of any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution, and makes 
it a misdemeanor for any person to attempt to make such importation. 

Section 4 contains a further provision in relation to contract labor, 
and makes it unlawful for an} 7 person to prepay transportation or in 
any way to assist or encourage the importation or migration of any 
alien into the United States in pursuance of any offer, solicitation, 
promise, or agreement, made previous to the importation, to perform 
labor or service of any kind, skilled or unskilled, in the United States. 

It would seem that this provision conflicts somewhat with section 2, 
in that it does not contain the exception provided for in the latter, 
which allows that skilled labor may be imported if labor of a like kind 
unemployed can not be found in this country. 

Section 5 of the act creates a penalty for the violation of any of the 
provisions of section 4, by setting forth that an} 7 person procuring the 
importation shall forfeit and pay for every such offense the sum of 
$1,000, which may be sued for and recovered by the United States or 
by any person who shall first bring his action therefor in his own name 
and for his own benefit, including any such alien thus promised labor 
or service of any kind as aforesaid. It is made the duty of the district 
attorney of the proper district to prosecute every such suit when 
brought by the United States. 

The commission has been unable to learn of any successful attempt 
to inforce the provisions of this section on the part of the United 
States. Probably this is due to the difficulty of obtaining sufficient 
evidence upon which to base an action. It has been stated that some 
cases are now pending. 

Section 6 of the act makes it also unlawful, and a violation of section 
4, to assist the importation or migration of aliens by promises of 
employment through advertisements printed and published in any for¬ 
eign country. 

By section 7 transportation companies, or persons engaged in trans¬ 
porting aliens into the United States, are forbidden, either directly or 
through agents, in any manner to solicit, invite, or encourage the 
immigration of any aliens into the United States, except by the usual 
advertisements as to the sailing of their vessels and the terms and 
facilities of transportation. 

Sections 8 and 9 forbid the bringing in of immigrants contrary to 
the provisions of the act and fix the penalties for persons so doing. 

Other provisions of the act will be discussed when the various ques¬ 
tions that have arisen under the enforcement of the law are considered. 

The principal causes for deportation are the violations of the 
contract-labor law, so-called, and the provisions against the admission 
of persons likely to become public charges. The proportion of depor- 



IMMIGKATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


19 


tations arising under the other circumstances specified in section 2 of 
the act is very small. A brief description of the method followed in 
the examination of immigrants will make clearer the grounds upon 
which are based the claims made that the law is unreasonable or has 
been unfairly enforced. 

While the steamship companies, because of the penalties visited 
upon them for their bringing in ineligible immigrants, and for failure 
to comply strictly with the terms of the act, can properly be consid¬ 
ered interested parties in the administration of the law, yet the two 
principal points involved are: First, justice to the immigrant; and, 
secondly, a protection to the United States in the prevention of the 
entry into its jurisdiction of persons likely to become a detriment to 
the country. 

It is proposed to consider first the enforcement of the laws relating 
to the immigrant personally. 

In order that the questions presented may be more intelligently con¬ 
sidered, the method of the procedure attendant upon the inspection of 
immigrants will be described. Although, as already seen, the provi¬ 
sions of the act apply to cabin passengers as well as to those who come 
in the steerage, and who only, in common parlance, are looked upon 
as immigrants, yet cabin passengers are, as a rule, not taken to Ellis 
Island for inspection, but are, fs we are informed, inspected on the 
vessels that bring them to our shores. 

Section 13 of the act provides that all aliens arriving by water at 
the ports of the United States shall be listed inconvenient groups, and 
no one list or manifest shall contain more than thirty names. To each 
alien or head of a famity shall be given a ticket, on which shall be 
written his name, the number or letter designating the list in which 
his name, etc., is contained, and his number on said list, for conven¬ 
ience of inspection. These tickets are usually pinned or tied on the 
clothing of the immigrant for the greater convenience of the inspect¬ 
ing officers and in order to avoid any loss of the tickets. 

The section referred to further specifies that each list, or manifest 
as it is more commonly called, shall be verified by the signature and 
the oath or affirmation of one of the officers of the vessel taken before 
the immigration officer at the port of arrival, to the effect that he has 
caused the surgeon of said vessel sailing therewith to make a physical 
and oral examination of each of said aliens, and that from the report of 
said surgeon and from his own inspection he believes that no one of 
said aliens is a person whose entry is prohibited under the statute as 
set forth in section 2 hereinbefore mentioned, and that also, according 
to the best of his knowledge and belief, the information on said lists 
or manifests concerning each of said aliens named therein is correct 
and true in every respect. 


20 IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 

Section 14 makes similar provision as to the examination the 
ship’s surgeon, and the latter is also required to sign and swear to the 
manifest. 

The immigration officers are required under the following section, 
upon the arrival of the lists or manifests, to send their representatives 
to the vessels and there inspect such aliens, or said officers may order 
the temporary removal of the aliens for examination at a designated 
time and place, but that such temporary removal shall not be consid¬ 
ered as a landing, nor shall it relieve the transportation lines from any 
of the obligations which, in case such aliens remained on board, would, 
under the provisions of the act, bind such transportation lines. 

The practice at the port of New York has been to have the immi¬ 
grant transferred as soon as practicable to Ellis Island at the expense 
of the steamship companies, who provide barges and steamboats for 
that purpose. Immediately upon their arrival at the island the immi¬ 
grants enter a building and ascend to an upper floor, a large part of 
which is devoted to inspection. The space is divided off by means of 
railings into long aisles, and at the head of each aisle an inspector sits 
at a desk and examines each immigrant within the aisle. The arrange¬ 
ment of the immigrants in the aisles is guided by the tickets they bear, 
so that the inspector at the desk has on the manifest before him the 
name and description of each immigrant who presents himself. The 
inspector interrogates the immigrants at length as to each item of 
information set forth in the manifest, and if he has any reason to 
believe that the applicant is either a contract laborer, one likely to 
become a public charge, or otherwise within the prohibited classes, he 
hands the immigrant a yellow ticket, indicating that he is held for 
special inquiry, and the attendants guide the immigrant to the deten¬ 
tion room, where he is kept until an opportunity is presented for a 
hearing before one of the boards of special inquiry. 

It will thus be seen that the only purpose that the manifest fulfills 
is to enable a more expeditious examination by the inspector because 
of the information previously obtained, and that the statements in the 
manifest are not relied upon by the Government in any way what¬ 
soever. 

If the immigrant is not held for special inquiry he is immediate^ 
discharged, and he is at liberty to leave the island on the next boat. 
As a matter of fact, he is, if New York be his destination, usually 
taken care of b} 7 " friends who are awaiting his release or by the repre¬ 
sentatives of the benevolent society of his nationality or creed. These 
societies represent many of the religious sects or denominations and 
almost all the nationalities coming to this port. In addition to this 
disposition of the immigrant, there is also an arrangement by which 
he can place himself in charge of the railroad companies, who have 
agents on the island and who will see that he is safely placed upon 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 21 

trains leaving for his destination in the West or other parts of the 
United States. The benevolent societies referred to are usually pro¬ 
vided with comfortable buildings in New York City’ in which immi¬ 
grants are kept temporarily until they are sent to their destinations 
in this or other States, or placed with relatives who could not have 
been found in the first instance. 

It is interesting to note that these immigrants brought into the 
United States during the last fiscal year upward of $16,000,000, the 
amount which each immigrant exhibited averaging about $20. 

Before the immigrant is inspected in the manner above described he 
undergoes an examination by physicians, who also stand at the end of 
long aisles, and as each immigrant approaches the doctor inspects him 
and particularly examines his head and his eyes in order to detect any 
possible disease of the scalp or eye. The examining physicians exer¬ 
cise great care and frequently wash their hands in disinfectants during 
the examination. If there is any suspicious indication the immigrant 
is put to one side for a more deliberate examination. If trachoma or 
favus is suspected the immigrant is sent to the hospital on the island 
and there kept for observation. If the disease exists beyond doubt 
the applicant is ordered deported forthwith. Such deportation under 
the law frequently results in a cruel separation of members of the 
same family. 

The medical service on the island is under the care of the United 
States Marine-Hospital Service, pursuant to section 17 of the act. The 
information obtained by the physicians is certified for the information 
of the immigration officers and the boards of special inquiry. 

A later section of the act provides that all aliens brought into this 
country in violation of law shall, if practicable, be immediately sent 
back to the countries whence they respectively came, on the vessels 
bringing them. This requirement is not always literally enforced, as 
it is often not possible to return the rejected applicant on the vessel 
that brought him over, and his passage is taken by another ship of the 
same line. The cost of the maintenance of all immigrants, including 
those detained till the arrival of friends, those detained in hospitals, 
those detained to await the cure of sick members of their families, 
and those ordered to be deported, while on land, as well as the expense 
of the return of such immigrants, is borne by the owners of the vessels 
by which they respectively came; in other words, by the steamship 
lines. A penalty is provided for the failure of the transportation lines 
to return the rejected immigrant to the foreign port from which he 
came or to pay the cost of his maintenance while on land. For main¬ 
taining immigrants at the island the companies had to pay $72,000 
during* one year. This amount does not include hospital charges. 

It will be observed that the transportation lines are, by section 19 of 
the law, only called upon to pay for the maintenance during the deten- 


22 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


tion of the immigrants who are ordered deported, and therefore it 
would seem that the practice of charging the different steamship 
companies with the cost of maintaining immigrants who are allowed 
to land, after detention and inquiry, should not be allowed to unduly 
burden them. 

But it is said on behalf of the Government that the companies would 
be compelled to maintain the immigrants on board their vessels until 
inspection, irrespective of the fact whether or not the aliens were sub¬ 
sequently deported, and that therefore the removal to Ellis Island and 
the maintenance of the immigrant during the period of inquiry is 
really a convenience to the companies, for which they should pay. This 
is true if the immigrants are not unduly detained. A time limit should 
be set so far as the liability of the carriers is concerned. 

The act further provides that any alien who shall come into the 
United States in violation of law, or who shall be found a public charge 
therein upon causes existing prior to landing, shall be deported to the 
country whence he came at any time within two years after arrival, 
at the expense, including one-half of the cost of inland transportation 
to the port of deportation, of the person bringing such alien into the 
United States, or if that can not be done, then at the expense of the 
immigration fund. 

The Secretary of Commerce and Labor is empowered (section 21) 
within the period of three years from the time of landing or entry of 
an immigrant, to cause such an alien to be taken into custody and 
returned to the country whence he came, if he is satisfied that he is in 
the United States in violation of the act of 1903 referred to, these 
deportations to be at the expense of the immigration fund; and if any 
transportation company neglects or refuses to comply with the order 
of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to take on board, guard 
safely, and return to the county whence he came, any alien so ordered 
to be deported, it shall be subject to the penalties likewise prescribed 
in the act. It will be observed that the two-} T ear period of section 20 
is limited to cases of 44 public charges,” and that the expense of deporta¬ 
tion is to be borne by the person bringing the alien into the United 
States in the first instance, whereas, the period of three years provided 
for in section 21 covers all cases, and the deportations have to be made 
at the expense of the immigration fund. 

The system of special inquiry hereinbefore referred to is carried 
into effect by the operation of three or four boards of special inquiry. 
Under the act these boards of special inquiry are appointed by the 
commissioners of immigration at the various ports of arrival for the 
prompt determination of all cases of aliens detained at such ports 
under the provisions of the law. The boards consist of three mem¬ 
bers selected from such of the immigrant officials as the Commissioner- 
General of Immigration, with the approval of the Secretary of 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


23 


Commerce and Labor, shall, from time to time, designate as qualified 
to serve. The boards are empowered under the act to determine 
whether an alien shall be allowed to land or shall be deported. 

It is further provided, that all the hearings before the boards “ shall 
be separate and apart from the public,” but that the said boards shall 
keep complete and permanent records of their proceedings and of such 
testimony as may be produced before them. The decision of any two 
members of the board shall prevail and be final, but either the alien 
or any dissenting member of said board may appeal through the com¬ 
missioner of immigration at the port of arrival and the Commissioner- 
General of Immigration to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
whose decision shall then be final; and the taking of such appeal shall 
be operative to stay any action in regard to the final disposal of the 
alien whose case is so appealed until the receipt by the commissioner 
of immigration at the port of arrival of such decision. . 

A great deal of the criticism made in regard to the operation of the 
immigration law has been directed to the special inquiry so conducted. 
It has been claimed that the requirement that the hearings shall be 
separate and apart from the public has placed immigrants ignorant of 
our language at a serious disadvantage, and even in other cases often 
caused an adverse decision because of the immigrant being unable to 
fully present his case to the board. The onty persons now allowed 
to be present at such hearings are the board of inquiry, consisting of 
three inspectors, the interpreter, and the immigrant, besides such 
witnesses as the board may permit to be called. The steamship com¬ 
panies, although they have to meet the heavy penalty of bearing the 
expense of maintenance and of the deportation of the immigrant, are 
not allowed to be present at the inquiry. It is our opinion that a 
proper construction of the statute gives to the steamship lines a right 
to which it is now claimed they are not entitled. The use of the word 
“public” in connection with any court proceedings has never been 
held to exclude persons interested in th'e proceedings, and it is clear 
that the companies are not really prohibited under the law from hav¬ 
ing a representative present at such hearings. Such a representative 
might be a person familiar with the treatment of the immigrants. It 
does not seem that there should be any objection to the-admission of a 
proper representative of the party whose property is involved at the 
hearing. 

A similar claim has been made with regard to the benevolent socie¬ 
ties, and while it does not seem so clear that under the law they would 
be entitled to be present, as in the case of the steamship companies, it 
is hard to conceive why the persons directly interested in the immi¬ 
grant should be excluded from such inquiry. 

The commission attended several times at tbe proceedings before 
the boards of inquiry and the} T saw no indication of a lack of apprecia- 


24 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


tion of the responsibility resting upon the officers. Apparent^ the 
inspectors constituting the board were desirous of obtaining the fullest 
information in each case, and their long experience in the performance 
of the duty enabled them to readily extract the necessary facts. 

If the immigrant has been held for inquiry because of indications 
that he is likely to become a public charge the board of inquiry investi¬ 
gates his statements that relatives or friends will provide against the 
happening of such a contingency, and here arises a rather difficult 
situation in many cases. Jf the immigrant arrives with onty a small 
amount of mone} r , say ten or twelve dollars, and is wholly without any 
means of obtaining employment, he is likely to be rejected because of 
the possibility of becoming a public charge. If, on the other hand, 
he states that he came to this country under a promise that he should 
have employment, he is likely to be rejected because of violation of 
the contract-labor laws. 

If the board of inquiry is not immediately satisfied that the immi¬ 
grant should be admitted, it is the practice for it to defer decision 
until further information is obtained. If after due consideration and 
one or more hearings the board determines that the immigrant shall 
be deported, appeal may be taken in the manner above described. This 
question of appeal is a very important one. There is so much involved 
in a sentence of deportation, such great hardship visited upon the 
immigrant, who in the majority of cases never has any design of offend¬ 
ing against the laws of this country and has no reason to believe that 
any objection will be offered to his entry. If he deem himself 
aggrieved by an adverse decision of the board of special inquiry, he 
should know precisely what his remedy is and when the appeal to 
which he is entitled may be taken. The law at present provides 
merely that the alien or any dissenting member of the board may 
appeal, but is silent as to when it should be filed, when heard, and 
when decided. The published rules and regulations of the Depart¬ 
ment under date of August *26, 1903, provide, by rule 7, that the 
immigrant who is denied admission shall be informed that he has a 
right of appeal therefrom, and the fact that he has been so informed 
shall be entered of record. This rule does not state when he shall be 
informed. Rule 8 provides that the notice of appeal shall be filed 
promptly, and rule 9 that after an appeal has been filed the record 
of the case, together with briefs, affidavits, and statements, should be 
forwarded to the Commissioner-General of Immigration within thirty- 
six hours after the filing of such notice. Considerable hardship and 
confusion have arisen from the uncertainty as to the time when appeal 
may be taken and also from the uncertainty as to the time when it has 
to be decided. The Commission was informed that there is another 
rule—of which it, however, was unable to obtain a copy—providing 
that appeal may be taken at any time prior to twelve hours from the 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 25 

time the ship on which the immigrant arrived is to leave port. If 
such a rule does exist, it is, perhaps, of but little value to an ignorant 
immigrant who does not know when the ship is likely to sail. 

In the case of Alter Schmidt (Exhibit 41), the alien was deported, 
although he offered to file notice of appeal from the order of the board 
of special inquir}% on the ground that his appeal had not been taken 
promptly. In that particular case the commission is of opinion that 
the appeal was not filed promptly, because it was not filed within 
three da3^s from the time the order of deportation was entered. But, 
nevertheless, that immigrant presented his notice of appeal, as the 
commission understands, more than seventeen hours before the ship 
that had brought him was expected to sail. The commission, there¬ 
fore, is of opinion that a time limit commencing on the day and hour 
on which the adverse decision was rendered should be set for the pur¬ 
pose of filing an appeal, say forty-eight hours or seventy-two hours, 
and that notice of such time limit should also be given to the alien or 
his representatives. 

Regarding the time within which decision should be rendered, the 
commission learns that some contract-labor cases have remained unde¬ 
cided for months, at great expense to the steamship companies which 
meanw T hile have to pay for the support of the detained immigrant. 
Such delay certainty causes great hardship also to the immigrant him¬ 
self. Hence a time limit within which appeals may be filed, heard, 
and determined should be prescribed. 

Criticism has been made of the personnel of these boards of inquiry, 
it being claimed that the work was so important that only men of the 
very highest grade be employed, and that an official who is receiving 
a salary of only $1,800 a year can not be expected to discharge the 
duties with a proper appreciation of the responsibilities involved. 

While it is true that these inspectors are not lawyers or men who 
have had the advantage of scientific training as a rule, } 7 et the experi¬ 
ence received in the handling of the immigrants, and their personal 
acquaintance with years of practical precedents (provided the person¬ 
nel is not frequentty changed), should qualify them to an extent that 
any person not familiar with the subject is apt to overlook. Their 
rulings as to persons likely to become public charges, for example, are 
based not only upon the evidence offered, but also upon their experi¬ 
ence with immigrants and their customs. It is a fact that notwith¬ 
standing the scrutiny exercised at Ellis Island, there are every year a 
number of immigrants returned by the city or State authorities to 
Ellis Island because they have become public charges. 

The records of Ellis Island show that during the fiscal year 1902-3 
about 1,100 applications were made at the station for deportation of 
persons who had previously been allowed to land. Of this number 
about one-fourth was deported, and some received hospital treatment 


26 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


at Ellis Island. The commission has no data as to what finally became 
of those who were not deported. 

As has been before suggested, there can be no hard and fast rule 
applied as to who shall come within such category. The local com¬ 
missioner has stated from not only his own personal experience, but 
from the records of years, that some persons are virtually paupers 
with $100, while others are not, although they have only $10. The 
true test is not the amount of money they bring, although this is often 
an important factor, but the ability to earn a living by securing 
remunerative work. 

It further appears that the statistics show that in 1902, 30 out of 
every 10,000 immigrants became public charges, as against 9 out of 
every 10,000 residents. (Min., p. 424.) 

Having described the procedure attendant upon the inspection and 
examination of immigrants, we may now consider the rights of the 
immigrants, and later the interest of the United States in the enforce¬ 
ment of the immigration law. 

It has been suggested that much needless hardship would be spared 
the immigrant if the Government substitute for the inquiry at Ellis 
Island an inquiry abroad. 

The commission has given careful consideration to this suggestion, 
and is of the opinion that such a course would be impracticable, but 
that it would be highly advisable if such inquiry could be supplemented 
by investigation abroad by United States authorities. 

The burden of showing that he is eligible to land is upon the immi¬ 
grant under section 24, which provides as follows: 

Every alien who may not appear upon examination by the immigration inspector 
at the port of arrival to be clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to land shall be 
detained for examination in relation thereto by the board of special inquiry. 

It is now the practice for some of the steamship companies them¬ 
selves to exercise a rigid supervision over the imitfigrants, but, not¬ 
withstanding that fact, and notwithstanding the examination that is 
made on board the steamships pursuant to the requirements of law, 
many persons applying for admission to the United States are rejected. 
One of the representatives of the steamship companies stated that dur¬ 
ing a period of about nine months as many as 1,039 persons had been 
rejected at their places of examination abroad because of being dis¬ 
qualified physically^ to enter this country under our laws. 

It further appeared in evidence that there are eight or more exami¬ 
nation bureaus on the Russo-German frontier under the control of the 
steamship companies, and that many applicants for passage are there 
rejected (p. 3Q2). Additional testimony was to the effect that the 
immigrants were not only examined at the frontier stations, but also 
at the seaports. At the port of Bremen during the year 1902 one 
company alone rejected 475 immigrants destined for the United States 



IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


27 


(p. 326), while over 2,000 were rejected before they reached Bremen 
from Russia and Austria. The proper enforcement of the law at 
Ellis Island has no doubt caused such precautions to be taken by the 
companies. 

Nevertheless, evidence of the uncertainty of examination abroad is 
to be found in the operation of the recent enactment by Congress 
allowing the imposition of a fine of $100 in each instance where an 
alien with a loathsome or contagious disease, which should have been 
detected in Europe by competent medical examination, was brought 
to this country. 

Commissioner Williams states that in the month of April the first 
fine of $100 was imposed, and that in June fines amounting to over 
$7,500 were imposed upon the steamship companies for bringing dis¬ 
eased aliens to this port. It is fair to assume that in view of the 
penalty so fixed the steamship companies attempted to make an exami¬ 
nation which was, as later events show, inadequate, at least under 
existing rules. 

It would certainly be hazardous to allow the immigrant to land upon 
an examination made abroad only, in view of the fact that a disease, 
for example, might not be so developed as to be detected at the foreign 
office, and yet really exist and be the subject of menace to the health 
of the people of this country. There are also other facts which might 
not be so readity ascertained abroad as upon a careful examination in 
this country. One of the most striking illustrations of this will be 
found in the case where the immigrant is allowed to land because of 
the help of relatives or friends in this country to insure that he or she 
will not become a public charge. The examining officials have diffi¬ 
culty even here in obtaining accurate and satisfactory information 
upon such a point. Again, many of the indications of the violations 
of the contract-labor law are to be found only after arrival in this 
country, when the officers*of the immigration station who conduct the 
inquiry at Ellis Island or elsewhere can ascertain whether such viola¬ 
tion is likely to occur or not. 

It is, of course, unfortunately true that the deportation of the immi¬ 
grant and his family, particularly where he has turned all his prop¬ 
erty into money for the purpose of coming to this country, is a most 
serious hardship, and one that should not be visited upon an alien 
whose admission the law contemplates. On the other hand, where it 
clearly appears that if such alien be allowed to remain in this country 
he will either become a public charge upon its citizens, or convey some 
serious disease, or interfere with the proper protection of labor, or be 
a disturber of the public peace, there is no other course possible but 
the performance of the duty owing to ourselves. 

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 1903, 631,885 immigrants 
were brought to Ellis Island for inspection, and during that year 6,839 


28 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


were excluded and deported to Europe at the expense of the steamship 
companies bringing them here. 

A recent report shows that the largest percentage of deportations 
occurred during December, 1902, which was about 3 per cent of the 
arrivals during that month. The deportations during the following 
May' and June amounted to about 1 per cent of the arrivals. The 
causes for which the above number of immigrants were deported dur¬ 
ing the last fiscal y ear are as follows: 


On medical certificates. 758 

On account of contract labor. 879 

As liable to become public charges. 4, 733 

Insane. 19 

•Convicts. 50 

Deported after having been landed. 400 


Total. 6,839 


The percentage of deportation for recent years was as follows: 


1899 . 

1900 

1901 

1902 

1903 


1.22 

.95 

.73 

.77 

1.02 


All the above figures relate to the fiscal year ending June 30. 

Probably the greatest hardship to some desirable immigrants is 
caused by the manner of enforcement of the contract-labor law. It 
would seem that no one who had given careful study to the whole sub¬ 
ject could question the wisdom of this law. 

The great problem of the relations of capital and labor is being 
gradually solved in this country, and an important element in such 
solution will be the spirit of fair play that controls every real Ameri¬ 
can. The introduction, therefore, of numbers of alien workmen under 
contract for the displacement of those whose homes are among us, 
would mean the bringing in of an element controlled by a spirit for¬ 
eign to that which supports our institutions and incompatible with the 
principles of American citizenship. Such a course would only tend, 
in the first instance, to delay a proper adjustment of the relations of 
capital and labor, and later be likely to cause disturbance thereof. 

Therefore no criticism can property be made of the wisdom of the 
legislation, but there appears to be good ground for complaint as to 
the method in which the law is enforced. 

An immigrant who is so improvident as to come to this country 
without any assurance of being able to earn a livelihood is not apt to 
make a desirable citizen, and therefore no objection should be made 
as to one who, without entering into the contract contemplated b}^ the 
law, yet leaves his home with a prospect of being able to support him¬ 
self by his own exertions. 















IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


29 


Various suggestions have been made as to the rules to be laid down 
in relation to the disposition of such cases; but there is really only one 
theory that can be successfully applied, and that is, that each case 
must be decided according to its own peculiar phases. Technical inter¬ 
pretations of the law should be waived where the authorities are satis¬ 
fied that there is no real violation. 

Many instances of a contrary course, where there was no question 
but that great injustice had been done the immigrant, were presented 
to the commission. Thus three farmers intending to go West, where 
farm hands are needed, were ordered deported because they had been 
asked by a brother to come and help him. The law intends just such 
men to come, but nevertheless they can not enter. 

Another matter of interpretation of the labor law relates to the 
question as to whether or not the act of March 3, 1903, contemplates, 
the deportation of so-called contract laborers. As it reads, the act 
does not require such deportation. It states in section 2 who shall be 
deported, and does not in that section name the contract laborer as one 
who is to be deported. In subsequent sections it provides that one 
who shall cause others to come here under contract, or the like, shall 
be punished by forfeiting and paying for every such offense the sum 
of $1,000. The question came up before Judge Lacombe, of the cir¬ 
cuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York, 
in the two cases entitled, u In the matter of Thomas S. Ellis,” and “ In 
the matter of Sotorios S. L. Charlambis.” These two immigrants, 
expert accountants, whose services were needed here and could not 
be performed by others, were ordered deported as contract laborers. 
They sued out a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed by Judge 
Lacombe, and from his decision an appeal was taken to the Supreme 
Court, and is, as we understand, now pending. In his opinion Judge 
Lacombe calls attention to the fact that the act now under considera¬ 
tion originated in the House of Representatives, and that when it came 
to the Senate it contained the following in section 2, where the per¬ 
sons to be deported were enumerated: 

Persons whose migration has been induced by offers, solicitations, promises, or 
agreements, parole or special, express or implied, of labor or work, or service of any 
kind, skilled or unskilled, in the United States. 

The Senate amended the House bill by striking out the clause last 
above quoted. The House nonconcured in the Senate amendment 
and the bill went to a conference committee. The committee came 
into accord as to which amendments should be accepted and which 
should be withdrawn. This particular Senate amendment was accepted. 
The House conferees reported to the House that they had concurred 
in the Senate amendment striking out the part of the bill relating 
particularly to the contract-labor law, leaving intact the contract- 
labor laws heretofore enacted and now on the statute books, the only 


30 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


variation being that the words “offers,” “solicitations,” or “prom¬ 
ises,” were substituted for the word “contracts.” (Congressional 
Record, p. 3205.) But it is possible that the conferees’ report to the 
House was not binding upon the Senate. Thereupon the House passed 
the bill as amended. 

It must not be overlooked that the act of March 3, 1903, provides 
by section 36, as follows: 

That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed. 

His honor, Judge Lacombe, held that the intent of Congress, though 
omitting the requirement of deportation in section 2 of the act of 
March 3, 1903, was, nevertheless, not to repeal those prior acts which 
required their deportation. That is the question now before the 
Supreme Court. At least, it is on the calendar of that court, as we 
are informed, and may possibly be argued there. 

It appeared in the record before Mr. Justice Lacombe that the peti¬ 
tioner’s attorney offered to suppty evidence that “labor of a like kind 
unemployed could not be found in this country,” and thus make the 
applicant come under the exception provided for by the statute; that 
an advertisement had been inserted in the daily papers calling for the 
services of the character to be furnished by the alien, and that such 
advertisements were unanswered. The court held that the board of 
inquiry, being the exclusive judges of the facts, the court could not 
consider that aspect of the case. 

It is, of course, possible that Congress intended that those who are 
brought here under contract, express or implied, by promises, or what 
not, shall not be deported, but shall be witnesses against the people 
from whom the penalty of $1,000 is to be collected. As the law stands 
at present, under the interpretation given it, deporting every alien 
who appears to two members of the board of special inquiry to be 
brought here under promises, it is practically impossible to proceed 
against the person who is supposed to owe the United States the pen¬ 
alty of $1,000. Inasmuch as 879 individuals were thus deported dur¬ 
ing the last fiscal year, the United States were deprived of the sum of 
$879,000, which might have been collected had proper evidence been 
obtainable and the aliens (who were supposed to have had such con¬ 
tracts) been detained here as witnesses. The possible hardship to the 
party detained will be largely outweighed by the value of the final 
result. 

It has been suggested (Min., p. 162) that no one be deported as a 
contract laborer unless the party with whom the contract was made, 
or supposed to have been made, is successfully proceeded against. 
Such a modification or interpretation of the law might be of value. 
As at present administered, the principal wrongdoer is the part}^ who 
induces the laborer to come here. He goes scot free. The poor 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


31 


laborer comes with great expectations, sacrificing considerable time 
and money, and is then punished b} 7 being deported. The instigator 
would be more apt to have a care were he to know that the instant 
his victim arrives and the facts are disclosed, proceedings for the col¬ 
lection of the $1,000 penalty would be promptly instituted. Where 
people seek to import laborers in groups of 20 or 30, the collection of 
this penal sum would be a more effective means of bringing the con¬ 
tract-labor law to the attention of interested parties in this country 
than is the mere fact that they failed to succeed in obtaining the 
desired laborers. 

Many instances of a too technical enforcement of the contract-labor 
law were presented to the commission. Mr. von Schleinitz told of the 
case of a young German boy, 16 years of age, who was excluded as a 
contract laborer because his brother-in-law, in East Rutherford, N. J., 
had promised to give him employment. This case was typical of 
many others of similar character and referred to above. 

The suggestion that the contract-labor law is apt to be too techni¬ 
cal^ enforced is not made without appreciation of the facts shown in 
the report recently made b}^ Mr. Marcus Braun, wherein it appears 
that great ingenuity is exercised abroad in evading the provisions of 
the contract-labor law. But we think it is safe to say that none of the 
instances mentioned by Mr. Braun presents facts similar to those 
which have been given as examples of an unreasonable interpretation 
of the statute. 

Another difficulty connected with the interpretation of the law deals 
with the detention of families where one member must go to the hospital 
on account of illness. Testimony on this subject will be found at 
pages 118, 137,119,152,191,192,162,161, and elsewhere. It appears 
that under the law if a child is to be deported, one adult member of 
the family has to go back with it. Children are deported when they 
have trachoma, favus, or when they are crippled, etc. Families have 
thus been separated, the mother being required to go back to Europe 
with the child, while the father, with other children, has been allowed 
to land. That is the law, however. Perhaps it could be modified. 
But when a child is in the hospital, always at the expense of the 
transportation company, the other members of the family, excepting, 
possibly, one adult, may be allowed to land. That adult is imprisoned 
(and supported at the expense of the steamship company), so that he 
or she ■ can not escape if it afterwards should appear^ that the child 
must be deported. But no one else should be detained, it seems to us, 
of that family, and yet this has been the fact. We understand from 
the missionaries and from the commissioner that every opportunity is 
given to these people to land if they wish to, but we presume that fre¬ 
quently they are detained as a unit at Ellis Island simply because they 


32 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


could not think of such a separation as the law is apt to inflict. The 
steamship companies complain, it seems justly, that they are made to 
pay immense sums of money for hospital treatment of immigrants. If 
the immigrant or his friends are able to pay for such treatment, there 
is no reason why others should bear such burdens. 

Another difficulty has to do with the question of trachoma cases. 
Trachoma is an eye disease, which is evidently curable in certain stages. 
(Dr. Weeks, Min., p. 671.) The law requires that persons suffering 
from loathsome, dangerous, or contagious diseases must be excluded 
and shall not be treated in the hospitals of the United States. An 
illustration of the difficulty regarding that interpretation of the law 
appears in the deposition of Mr. Van Ingen, formerly counsel of the 
Commissioner of Immigration. He gives the history of a child which 
was detained on the certificate of the physician of Ellis Island as hav¬ 
ing trachoma and was ordered deported. The parents of the child did 
not believe that she had trachoma and wanted to prove this, and 
appeared before one of the justices of the United States court with 
their prayer that they be permitted to adduce such proof. But Judge 
Lacombe held (Min., p. 571) that the said medical certificate was con¬ 
clusive, and that therefore, whether the child had trachoma or not, if 
the doctor said it had, no further investigation was allowed. Doctor 
Stoner testified (Min., p. 633) that there are practically no appeals 
from the decision of the first doctor at Ellis Island to the board of 
plwsicians. From that board of physicians no appeal is permitted. 
So this child was kept in the hospital at Ellis Island pending the deci¬ 
sion of the court, and meanwhile it got well and was thereupon 
“paroled” b} 7 order of Judge Lacombe. (Min., p. 574.) 

The witness, Van Ingen, was asked this question: 

Your idea, of course, is that even after cured it is not allowed to land under sec¬ 
tion 19, because no aliens certified (to have trachoma) shall be allowed to land? 
She was certified to have trachoma, wasn’t she? 

To which he answered, “ Yes.” 

He then is asked: » 

No alien certified to # have trachoma shall be permitted to land? 

The law says: “Shall not be permitted to land for treatment in the 
hospitals of the United States.” 

And he answers: 

That is, one of the maritime hospitals. 

Q. What did you put her there for?—A. We had to. 

Q. It says you should not?—A. Only for treatment. It doesn’t say we can’t put 
them in the hospital. We have to put them there. We couldn’t put them in a 
room full of people. 

Q. That child was simply put in the hospital and not treated and yet got well?— 
A. I wouldn’t like to say she was not treated. She probably was, but it is not sup¬ 
posed to be done. 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


33 


It was afterwards shown that it was the understanding of the author¬ 
ities that such children were not to be allowed to go to any hospital 
(p. 572), while the act of Congress only excludes them from hospitals 
of the United States, not from hospitals in the United States. 

We are cognizant of cases in which people, whose children are found 
to have trachoma in its noncontagious form, are willing to pay for 
their treatment and care in a private hospital. Under the answers 
above quoted, which were given by Mr. Van Ingen, it is perfectly 
clear that the authorities at Ellis Island are justified in proper cases, 
where the families are in this countiy, well settled, and willing to pay 
for the treatment of a child for such curable trachoma, to permit them 
to do so in a private hospital, taking precautions, of course, that the 
hospital authorities must produce the alien, when cured to the satis¬ 
faction of the Ellis Island authorities, or otherwise submit to proper 
regulations in that behalf. 

Among the charges brought by the reporter of the Staats-Zeitung 
against the administration at Ellis Island were some involving alleged 
wrongful deportation. As before stated, the commissioner was given 
an opportunity to reply to these specifications, and satisfied us that 
these charges were unfounded. But one or two instances will well 
illustrate the difficulty of passing upon public-charge cases: 

A Portuguese woman arrived in April, 1902, and was allowed to 
join her married daughter in California. In February last this 
woman came to the island destitute, requesting deportation. 

In another case a Russian came over on December 4, 1902, and was 
allowed to land because he wished to join his married daughter in Rhode 
Island, the latter having declared that her husband had a clothing store 
worth over $7,000, and desired to care for her father. This immigrant 
was picked up in the streets of New York by the outdoor poor depart¬ 
ment (p. 354). 

On July 15, 1903, a 12-year-old Italian boy was brought before one 
of the magistrates in New York City on the charge of vagrancy. He 
had obtained admission into the country on the promise of a brother, 
20 years of age, who had gone out to Ellis Island and agreed to take 
care of the boy. 

Where, however, a family of eight persons with only $12 was allowed 
to land and go to Spokane, nothing subsequently transpired to indicate 
that a mistake had been made. No doubt in that case the commissioner 
was presented with satisfactory evidence that there was no danger of 
the persons becoming public charges (p. 376). 

A case reported in the Staats-Zeitung was that of an aged woman 
who died on the island. The article was’ headed, “Only the knout is 
wanting; otherwise Russian conditions prevail at Ellis Island—A 
woman who wanted to go to her children tn Pittsburg is detained on the 


20311—04-3 



34 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


island and dies in the hospital” The facts in that case were as 
follows: 

The woman was upward of 62 years of age, and was in very frail 
condition. Her children were in Pittsburg, and she was detained until 
they could be sent for, in order that she might be properly taken care 
of. Two days after her arrival, and while still awaiting the coming of 
her children, she was taken to the hospital on a stretcher, suffering 
from heart disease, from which she died on September 26, 1903, and 
five hours before the arrival of her daughter at Ellis Island. Exam¬ 
ination after death disclosed the case as fibrous degeneration of the 
heart. The daughter was without means to defray the expenses of her 
mother’s burial, and they were borne by the steamship company 
(p. 362). This cruel charge was, therefore, unfounded. 

The attention of the commission was called to a case that happened 
some months ago, where a young immigrant girl, upon alighting from 
a train at Bayonne, N. J., was maltreated by some ruffians, and inquiry 
was made as to the circumstances. It appears that after her right to 
land had been ascertained she was taken in charge by the railroad 
people and provided with a ticket to her destination in Bayonne; that 
owing to some mistake made by her or by the railroad company she 
alighted at the wrong station, and there met with her misfortune. It 
did not appear that the officials at Ellis Island could have done any¬ 
thing to prevent the occurrence of the wrong, as they have no means 
of furnishing escorts to young women or others under such circum¬ 
stances, and have to rely upon the railroad companies to properly 
carry the immigrants to their destination. 

Before concluding, the commission can appropriately say that it 
knows of no public service, national or municipal, that calls for such 
varied and incessant work as the Ellis Island station of immigration. 
The entire force, including the commissioner, are required to work 
daily, even on Sundays, in order to dispose of the business of the 
station. It was stated to the commission that during the past year 
the station had been closed only five holidays, one of which was Easter 
Sunday. Commissioner Williams informed the commission that he 
personally attended every da} 7 that the island was open for business, 
with the exception of the five days referred to, and that his work fre¬ 
quently demanded that he remain late at night. In fact, so important 
is the immigrant service at Ellis Island and to such an extent does it 
affect the entire immigration of the country that the commission can 
well conceive of the advantage that would accrue to the Immigration 
Bureau if it were established at Ellis Island under the charge of the 
Commissioner-General, instead of at Washington, being, of course, 
under the same supervision of the Department of Commerce and 
Labor. 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 35 

Since making our investigation we find that the contract relating to 
the transporation of immigrants’ baggage, made with the Westcott 
Express Company, has also been changed, by providing that articles 
of merchandise which immigrants may bring shall be charged a higher 
rate than the articles of baggage on which the contract is based. We 
have not had the opportunity of giving this matter, which arose quite 
recently, our careful attention, but beg to report that it has been 
reported to us that the express compan}^, under this new arrangement, 
proceeds to apply the high charges for merchandise on all articles of 
baggage which, in the opinion of the express company, contain an 
article of merchandise, such as a piece of bread or a pocketknife, and 
that the original contract, therefore, has become a nullit} 7 . Whether 
this is true or not we are unable to state. We would recommend, how¬ 
ever, that the express company in question be required to transport 
everything that the immigrants bring, as under the original contract, 
except in those cases where the Commissioner of Immigration decides 
that special cases involve the transportation as “merchandise.” The 
necessity for the change arose from the fact that many immigrants are 
said to have brought cases full of actual merchandise, such as pianos 
and the like, which the express company was not asked to consider 
in the original bid. But, nevertheless, as abuse of the new privilege 
is possible and in fact charged, every precaution should be taken 
to prevent injustice to the bona fide immigrants who bring nothing 
but reasonable baggage. We point to the commissioner’s letter to 
the chairman of November 7, likewise to his letter to the Westcott 
Express Company, dated October 31, 1903, both of which documents 
constitute Exhibit No. 40. 

The conclusions of the commission, which are partly foreshadowed 
in its foregoing report and which are based upon its careful scrutiny 
of the evidence, which is filed herewith; of the exhibits, also filed 
herewith; and of the witnesses, and the personal observation of the 
commissioners of the manner in which immigrants are treated at Ellis 
Island are, to state them briefly, as follows: 

First. Th&t the charge that there has been improper detention of 
large numbers of immigrants for special inquiry is unfounded. 

Second. That the charge that immigrants have been refused permis¬ 
sion to leave Ellis Island until their relatives are heard from is true, 
insofar as every effort is made to protect immigrants from falling into 
evil hands. 

Third. That the charge that there has been deportation of large 
numbers of immigrants, who should have been allowed to land, is not 
supported by any evidence, the commission finding the contrary to be 
the fact. 

Fourth. That complaints about the methods of the boards of special 


36 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


inquiry have not been sustained except on the question of the inter¬ 
pretation of the law, which leads to the exclusion of interested parties 
and representatives of the immigrants from hearings. 

Fifth. That the charge that there is overcrowding in the detention 
rooms is in many cases well founded; but so long as larger quarters 
are not at the disposal of the authorities this difficulty can not be over¬ 
come. 

Sixth. That the charge that there are unclean conditions in and about 
the buildings at Ellis Island has not been supported by the proofs. 
On the contrary, the buildings and appointments were found excep¬ 
tionally clean, except as to the sufficient disinfection of the blankets. 

Seventh. That the charge that there is too severe an interpretation 
of the law by the officers at Ellis Island is not sustained by the proofs. 

Eighth. That the commission did not find any evidence of a general 
animus against immigration displayed by the Commissioner of Immi¬ 
gration and those under him in the performance of their duty. 

Ninth. That the charge that the buildings are inadequate in their 
appointments and extent is fully sustained. 

Tenth. That the charge that children, and women, and others who 
are detained at Ellis Island or in the hospitals thereof are required to 
do menial work, is not sustained, although it would probabH benefit 
those who are detained if they were given some work to do. 

Finally, the commission reports upon the evidence that the immi¬ 
grant is not treated unkindly, but, on the contrary, with every possi¬ 
ble consideration, so far as the inadequate facilities at Ellis Island 
will permit. He is well fed, fairly well housed, taken care of in the 
hospital when sick—all without expense to himself. If permitted to 
land, that permission releases him instantly from the direct control of 
the Ellis Island authorities. If, however, friends or relatives who will 
act in the nature of special protectors are expected to call for him, he 
is again given his food and lodging, without expense to himself, until 
their arrival. The’ commission feels it a duty to unhesitatingly declare 
that Commissioner Williams is entitled to the highest commendation 
for the indefatigable zeal and intelligent supervision he has exercised 
in administering the affairs of the Ellis Island station, and for the 
humane consideration he has invariably shown to the immigrants while 
they remained under his jurisdiction. 

The commission feels called upon to make the following recom¬ 
mendations: 

RECOMMENDATIONS. 

1. That the boards of special inquiry shall admit to their sessions 
the parties in interest, with opportunity to propound questions and 
produce witnesses, such parties in interest being the representatives 
of the transportation companies and the representatives of the immi¬ 
grant. 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


37 


2. That aliens who are charged with coming under the contract labor 
law be held, whenever practicable, until the alleged contractor be heard 
or proceedings against him be instituted and completed by the Attorney- 
General or other proper officer, and that if in such proceedings the 
contractor is not held liable the immigrant be allowed to land if other¬ 
wise not ineligible. If the law would permit, the contractor should be 
charged with the expense of deportation and the cost of maintenance 
of the alien. 

3. That the contract-labor law be not construed to appty to aliens 
otherwise eligible, who through relatives or other proper sources of 
inquiry have ascertained before coming that reasonable opportunity 
for finding work exists, nor to aliens of the class described in the pro¬ 
ceedings against Ellis and another, whose places could not otherwise 
be filled in this country. 

4. That the commissioner of immigration at Ellis Island be given 
authority to hear and determine appeals from the boards of special 
inquiry, and that his decision become final upon approval by the Sec¬ 
retary of Commerce and Labor. 

5. That provision be made for the filing of an appeal, within a spec¬ 
ified number of days after the order of deportation is rendered, and 
communicated to the alien by the board of special inquiry; that the 
immigrant and his representative be informed at the time the decision 
is rendered of this time limit; that a time limit be set for the hearing 
of the appeal, and a time limit thereafter, within which the appeal 
must be decided. 

6. That an immigration inspector be appointed for service at each 
port of departure, whose duty it shall be to ascertain, as far as feasible, 
the correctness of the answers inscribed upon the manifest. 

7. That the original contract for exchanging foreign money at Ellis 
Island, and the contract as changed, be submitted to the Attorney- 
General for advice. 

8. That after the expiration of the contract with Messrs. Post & 
Flagg, an officer of the United States be given charge of the exchange 
of foreign money at Ellis Island. 

9. That diseased immigrants, whose diseases are not in a contagious 
stage, may, if they or the parties interested in them desire it, be 
treated at their own expense in private hospitals, under regulations of 
the Department of Commerce and Labor, and that when they can not 
or do not wish to pay for such treatment they may be admitted to the 
hospitals of the United States for observation and treatment. 

10. That the matter of additional charges for transportation of 
“merchandise” be given further close attention and careful super¬ 
vision, such extra charges to be collected only on the express approval 
of the commissioner in each case. 

11. That the railroad companies that have offices at Ellis Island are 


38 


IMMIGRATION STATION AT ELLIS ISLAND. 


not to be prevented from accepting checks or other form of payment 
for the transportation of immigrants, under such regulations as the 
commissioner may prescribe. 

12. That where marriages are required to be performed at Ellis 
Island, religious service shall in all cases be insisted upon, if attainable, 
unless the parties themselves decline it. 

13. That an adequate and wholesome hospital building be sub¬ 
stituted at Ellis Island for that now there. 

14. That the main building at Ellis Island be enlarged and so recon¬ 
structed that the examinations by inspectors may take place on the 
ground floor, and that ample dormitories be provided. 

15. That provision be made for supplying each immigrant who has 
to stay at Ellis Island over night with blankets that are thoroughly 
disinfected, and that for those immigrants who are detained for a 
longer period, sheets be supplied in addition to blankets. 

16. That steamship companies shall not be charged with the cost of 
feeding immigrants who are detained by the board of special inquiiy 
for more than one week, except in those cases which result in deporta¬ 
tion, nor for the treatment of immigrants in hospitals for disease con¬ 
tracted after arrival at our immigrant station. 

17. That the number of passengers allowed to be carried by the 
steamboats to and from Ellis Island be limited to the cabin capacity 
thereof. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Arthur v. Briesen. 

Lee K. Franker. 

Eugene A. Philbin. 

Thomas W. Hynes. 

Ralph Trautmann. 

New York, November 11, 1903. 


O 

































• • 




; 








' 




















. 
























, 

- • 







































































LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 







































